Talk:Treaty of Lisbon/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Ratification At a glance: UK

The portion of the At a glance section containing details of the UK's ratification of the Lisbon treaty includes two footnotes that are unreferenced. The first states, "House of Commons voting does not permit Members to abstain. 81 Members were able to vote but did not do so." Without a reference, this statement appears to be opinion--as a reader interested in this topic, I'd like to see where the editor got this information. The second statement reads, "The House of Lords approved the treaty bill without a division, after a procedural motion to defer consideration of the bill due to the the negative Irish referendum on the Treaty was defeated by 277 votes to 184." Once again, without a reference this appears to be someone's reading of the facts, but hardly verifiable. I've already attempted once to remove these opinion statements, but had my edits reverted by EmilJ, so rather than risk an edit war I wanted to bring the question up on the Discussion page. As decorum would dictate I did do a fair amount of rummaging about trying to find a source that would substantiate either of these claims (81 non-votes in the Commons, Lords approving without a division), but I must not be looking in the right place as I was unable to find a source confirming these specific details.

Before posting this, I read the relevant Wikipedia policies on the subject at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BRD, and feel that I'm on solid ground to request that these statements be either backed up with a reliable third-party source or removed from the article altogether. If anyone disagrees, please do share your thoughts as I certainly don't preclude the possibility that I'm wrong. TrufflesTheLamb (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The first point should probably be rephrased. I presume the editor meant:

"To abstain is to refuse to take sides in a vote. However, abstentions are not officially recorded in the House of Commons or House of Lords." [1]

--Boson (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I agree that he's probably right on the abstention side, but given the section deals specifically with how the votes turned out in each country, it's the 81 abstentions on the Commons vote that I was hoping to get properly referenced. If anyone has a reference for that (in addition to one for the Lords results as mentioned above), I'd like to add it. TrufflesTheLamb (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be OK to state "94 abstentions" citing http://ec.europa.eu/portugal/pdf/temas/lisbon_treaty/tratado_lisboa_ratificacao_estado_actual_22maio2008_en.pdf or explaining the simple arithmetic 646 - 206 - 346 and the rule quoted above in a footnote. Without a citation, I would agree that the reduction from 94 to 81 based on how many MPs were apparently not "able" to vote looks like original research. --Boson (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well there is an actual figure of how many MPs are able to vote on a bill in the Commons. The Speaker does not vote and neither do any of the Sinn Fein MPs, who do not take their seats. So not all 646 MPs could have voted for the Lisbon ratification. Please bear this in mind. David (talk) 09:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(un-indent) The statment: "The House of Lords approved the treaty bill without a division, after a procedural motion to defer consideration of the bill due to the the negative Irish referendum on the Treaty was defeated by 277 votes to 184" is not a statement of opinion, but simply a record of what happened which can be verified by looking at the parliamentary record. There was, in fact, a procedural motion to defer debate on the bill until after a then hypothetical second referendum in Ireland. This motion was defeated by 277 votes to 184. After that the bill passed without a division. Where's the opinion? — Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Map

Since both Houses of the Irish Parliament have voted to hold another referendum shouldn't Ireland be shown as blue (process of ratification still ongoing) instead of red? The red color seems to imply that Ireland is done and that the treaty cannot come into force ever. That is clearly not the case here. Regardless of whether you believe this second vote is right or wrong, the fact remains that it is being done. The map should reflect that. Khajidha (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, its again how you view the stages in different countries. After the Irish vote, it will either stay red or turn blue, because even if the referendum passes, the treaty then goes back to the Oireachtas and President for more ratification before Ireland could potentially turn green.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 16:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Not ratified means that the process has ended, and the treaty has been rejected. Until the Irish parliament decided to try again, that was the situation in Ireland and the red color was appropriate. Since then the Dail has voted (one step in the ratification process), the Seanad has voted (another step in the ratification process), and the second referendum has been set (yet another step in the ratification process). Obviously the ratification process is ongoing. Leaving Ireland red is misinforming the readers of this page. As for your points, I understand that even passing the referendum doesn't end the process - I just think that we should show that the process hasn't stopped. Khajidha (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Please update the map to include Germany's ratification, which took place yesterday. It was signed by the German President Horst Koehler. Lazyhoser (talk) 00:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

According to a reliable source that contacted the German Foreign Office, the ratification document was 'on its way' to Rome / to be deposited on the same day (Friday, September 25): Die Urkunde sei bereits auf dem Weg nach Rom und werde dort noch heute bei der italienischen Regierung hinterlegt [will be deposited today], hieß es beim Auswärtigen Amt (see here). The ratification process has been completed in Germany. --DaQuirin (talk) 11:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Either the document is in Rome or it isn't in Rome, but can we please try and have consistent information in the table and the map? Yesterday, the map said Germany has deposited the Instrument of Ratification, and the table said it hadn't. Today it's the other way around. Besides, the map now shows Germany in yellow, but it nowhere explains what yellow is supposed to mean. How is anyone supposed to make sense of this?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.78.140.9 (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait for the dust to settle. — Emil J. 15:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

What does it do?

It seems really important. I shouldn't have to feel like I'm learning calculus from scratch/have to follow half the bluelinks on the introduction/ just to learn the irreducible principles (which must be very few) of what it does. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think I understand it now. Well, enough that I don't care to learn more. I had to read the European Constitution article, the last section of this article, the introduction, the navbox, the Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland Bill, 2008.. Damn this stuff is complicated! Could you include a "section for clueless people completely unfamiliar with EU branches/semi-presidential systems and only somewhat familiar with parliaments"? Even your own voters can't understand it, and they already know the basics like what the heck all your Councils and pillars is and why you'd need more Euro things besides the Parliament and Euro Court(s) and now you're planning to add even more stuff.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

About modifications by Lucy Mary

Thank you for better organizing my additions and moving some things that were not in the right place. I nevertheless strongly disagree with my contribution being called "POV vandalism": I tried to bring to this article more diverse points of view.

I was not the only one to feel that need for diversity (see above : "why is there no criticism")

In case Lucy Mary would like to erase once again the elements I have re-inserted on the web page, I would appreciate her to discuss it first in the discussion page. (86.197.143.188 (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC))

New Czech move to block EU treaty

From BBC [2]. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

About "POV" and the possibility of describing criticism about the Lisbon Treaty

According to the definition given on [3], the neutral point of view "requires that all majority- and significant-minority views must be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material".

The present article describes the Treaty of Lisbon in a overall positive tone, without dealing with problems, criticism, internal or external contradictions. This qouestion was already raised on this discussion page (see Why is there no criticism). Other wikipedia articles about the Lisbon Treaty in other languages have a stable "criticism section", that is not called "non neutral". I wonder why that is not possible on the english speaking wikipedia?

"Neutrality of point of view" means "presenting fairly majority- and significant-minority point of view", not erasing all modifications without making any difference and calling them "POV". I will then, following the german speaking wikipedia page about Lisbon Treaty create a new section called "criticism", in order that all point of views are represented. Some other addings I made are just facts, that is a "pieces of information about which there is no serious dispute". I will let them in the sections where they were.

If you don't agree with anyting, please take a bit of your time to discuss it on this page. (10:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.200.235.219 (talk)

You may add material provided that is properly cited from notable sources and is based on reality. You may not add your own opinion. This is exactly as for every other article on Wikipedia. --Red King (talk) 11:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

In addition any opinion cited in the article must be presented as such, attributed and represent a mainstream and not a fringe opinion. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing "Criticism on the Lisbon Treaty" section until each and every sentence get a citation from a primary reliable source. Below a short list of problems:

• "it was said" by who? provide a link or a DOI for a published paper
• "They bring little improvement about democracy...." Is this the opinion of the uncited authorities or a statement of facts?
• "Many analysts add" Who? A link should be provided! What does it mean "many" ?
• "as ruled by the German Constitutional Court about the Lisbon Treaty ratification" - provide a link to the sentence in which the German C.C. says that EU institutions are "out of the citizen’s control, either at the European or the national level, through the Parliaments"
• "This makes suspicion grow about the influence of the lobbies." Who is getting suspicious?
• "The fact that the treaty is a complex text makes it difficult to understand by the citizens." lack of citation (BTW anything to be said about the consolidated text published in the EU official journal?)
• "This was affirmed by 22% of the voters who voted no in 2008." IRISH should be inserted somewhere (not using capital case of course).
• "was criticized as a lack of legitimity, particularly in France and in the Netherlands" Again, who criticized, when, how ?
• "the governments decided" this statement is false.
• Criticism about so called "militarism" section please provide a full, not manipulated and without omission, quote of the whole article(s) you are quoting in this barbarous way. BTW just to help you:

2. The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides. It shall in that case recommend to the Member States the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

The policy of the Union in accordance with this Section shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States and shall respect the obligations of certain Member States, which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), under the North Atlantic Treaty and be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework.

• "Lisbon Treaty doesn’t modify the main orientations of European policies (notably about currency, trade and competition)." Which authorities do support this opinion? Why this is written as if it were a fact?
• "was also criticized" by?

Please solve all these problems before adding anything to the article or it will be deleted as it can be considered POV vandalism. --Nick84 (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The usual way people deal with this kind of issue is that they put a draft text in their sandbox and and invite people to determine whether it is good enough to go in the article, where "good enough" means sufficiently NPOV and properly cited. [The referenced material doesn't have to be neutral, just the way we describe it]. Of course to get a sandbox you (the user at 86.200.235.219) need to register. Doint that will also give you your own talk page where you can discuss things off stage. --Red King (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

has not been ratified by all

Whoops, Ireland ratified, meaning "has not been ratified by all" (the lead, footnote #1, etc.) must be altered:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/10/03/world/AP-EU-Ireland-EU-Treaty.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.19.201.156 (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ireland has not ratified yet. There is still a process to go through. It will take a week or two. It may even take longer than that if a legal challenge is lodged against the result. Moreover Poland and the Czech Republic have yet to ratify either. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

So I shouldn't change the map to include Ireland? TastyCakes (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the map should show Ireland, along with Poland and the Czech Republic as countries where the ratification process is on-going. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I see. It hinges on the Kaczynski twins agreeing and President Klaus not excessively hindering things, as well as Ireland making a document deposit with the Italian government. — 173.19.201.156 (talk) 00:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it actually hinges only on one Kaczynski - the president, on Klaus and on the Irish parliament and Irish head of state to complete the process. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 06:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

German ratification

EUobserver states that the Bundestag voted 446-46 passing the new laws on the Lisbon treaty on 9 September while the Bundesrat will vote on 18 September. The president is expected to sign before the general election on 27 September. [4] Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

He signed today: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,650748,00.html 85.179.129.219 (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

He signed a paper, yes, but not the Treaty of Lisbon: "Köhler unterzeichnet Gesetze zum EU-Reformvertrag". --Kolja21 (talk)

Currently, the changed table is wrong. It says the German president gave his presidential assent today on September 25th. This is incorrect. He signed the instrument of ratification today required for deposition (unfortunately, despite vigorous debate this separate step was never been included in the table). Still, September 25th is NOT the date of presidential assent, it's October 8th, 2008. In the deposition column we also can't insert September 25th because the date inserted there is when the documents physically arrive in Rome - today's signature means they can finally be sent there. Well, considering the long debates we had on this talk page, I doubt people will listen to the truth and react in a calm manner if I change the table. So I refrain from it, but just for the record: the table right now is incorrect. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 11:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It's becoming tiring. There is a banner on the top as well. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? The table is still wrong. Presidential assent was provided on October 8, 2008, not on September 25, 2009 as the table currently states. Also, deposition is marked as September 25, 2009, which again is incorrect. The documents have not been deposited in Rome yet. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I meant that I agree with you. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The table seems to have been corrected. But since the table now correctly states that the german Instrument of Ratification has not yet been deposited in Rome, the map should be changed back. It clearly says that the color green is for those countries that have deposited the document in Rome, not for those that have completed national ratification. Germany's color should remain blue until the document arrives in Rome. At least, the table and the map should agree on this.

It has arrived in Rome on the 25th according to this source. Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk • contribs) 14:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The official source[5] does not confirm it. — Emil J. 14:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, they may not have updated their page, but it cannot be more official than the German Foreign Office [6]: Mit der Hinterlegung der Ratifizierungurkunde [deposition of the ratification document] im italienischen Außenministerium in Rom ratifizierte Deutschland am 25. September 2009 den Vertrag von Lissabon und ist damit völkerrechtlich gebunden. Germany has completed the ratification process on September 25. The discussion here is very odd. --DaQuirin (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This official statement from the Italian foreign ministry is equally clear and refers to the receipt by the Ministry's Secretary General of the ratification instrument on the 25th. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Can someone update the map then, so that it says the same thing as the table and the relevant article section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.78.133.221 (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the official source[7] now confirms the date of September 25, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.78.135.187 (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Since German ratification has now been officially confirmed, shouldn't Germany be removed from the section about "Specific Issues"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.78.135.187 (talk) 11:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest to keep the bulk of information referring to Germany. (1) It explains why the German ratification came so late. (2) The important and somewhat controversial decision of the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe will influence the future interpretation of the Lisbon treaty (by the German government) in case the treaty will come into force. --DaQuirin (talk) 14:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree that the information should be preserved, but i disagree that it belongs into this particular section. The "specific issues" part lists all the member states that have not yet ratified the treaty, and what is holding up ratification in those states. A new section might give information about states that have completed ratification but have required additional safeguards, including the Karlsruhe ruling (and the additional assurances given to the Irish, once Ireland has completed ratification as well). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.78.135.187 (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur that the information should be preserved. The ruling of the constiutional court in Karlsruhe gives definite answers to questions which are often asked about the treaty like: "Will it abolish the souvereign states"? How should one handle the democratic deficit of the EU? Where are the competences in different fields and who has the competence to grant and revoke competences?

Having a section like "Interpreation of the Treaty" would be nice. For a start, the part from the Germany ratification could be moved there and be expanded. The decision by the the Czech Consitutional Court dismissing the first complaint against the treaty should also be included. When the treaty is passed, subsequent rulings of the ECJ could also be added to this section.

In any case: We have here an in depth analysis (>100 PAGES!) of the consequences of the treaty on one of the EU members which is legally binding (unless the German people give themselves a new constitution in an referendum...). The only reference to this in the article should not be simply deleted.

Before creating a critism section, where analyses by biased think tanks (Open Europe and Center For European Reform - I'm looking at both of you!) are used to make a point either way, we should really work towards incorporating these official interpretations of the treaty... --84.163.94.198 (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The date of the Presidential Assent in Germany was the 25.09.2009, not the 08.10.2008 as stated in the table at the “At a glance”-chapter. At the 8th of October President Köhler just signed a law, which enables the implementation of the treaty in Germany. Just one possible source: [8] – For further detail see also the German Wikipedia Article de:Vertrag_von_Lissabon#Verfahren_in_Deutschland. Can anyone please correct the date? --Teilzeittroll (talk) 10:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The article writes that the ratification was done at 25.09.2009. We are ok. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

There still was no "Presidential Assent" on 08.10.2008. But who cares...--Teilzeittroll (talk) 12:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Presidential Assent refers to the act of signing the parliamentary ratification bill which is required to publish the bill in the federal gazette (the Bundesgesetzblatt). This was done on October 8th, 2008. On September 25, 2009, Köhler signed the so-called "instrument of ratification", which is required for deposition (basically he signed the order to have the documents sent to Rome). This is not part of the "presidential assent" because it is outside of the national ratification procedure, but is part of the international deposition procedure. Here is a link to a very good, official explanation from the Auswärtiges Amt: [url]http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/diplo/en/Europa/LissabonVertrag/Reformvertrag.html[/url] ("In Germany the parliamentary ratification process has already been completed: the Bundestag and Bundesrat both approved the law approving the Lisbon Treaty by a large majority. Federal President Horst Köhler issued the law ratifying the Treaty on 8 October 2008, and it was then promulgated in the Federal Law Gazette.") Best, Themanwithoutapast (talk) 12:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed answer! --Teilzeittroll (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Czech law allows a complaint against the Czech president for inactivity that compels him to sign the treaty

I would argue to add this to the section on specific ratification issues in the Czech Republic: It is possible that the Czech government files a complaint against the Czech president for inactivity. The threat alone to do so has already worked for another international treaty ratification - the acknowledgement of the ICC. The possibility to do this is detailed here: [9]. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 06:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it will be needed. According to the (London) Times, the Czech president has fairly clearly indicated his intention to sign, saying "the Czech President warned David Cameron that it was “too late” for him to stop the document taking effect."Too late for the Tories: Czechs dash hopes of delaying EU treaty --Red King (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar

I don't agree with having consultative "ratifications" in this article but, as long as they're there...

I removed the following paragraph from the article:

"With the ordinance for applying the Treaty of Accession 2005 the European Communities Ordinance of 1972 was changed so that "any other Treaty entered into by any of the Communities with or without any of the member States, or entered into, as a treaty ancillary to any of the Treaties, by the United Kingdom.", thus the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon by the United Kingdom also applies to Gibraltar.

The Treaty of Lisbon is neither a "Treaty entered into by any of the Communities" nor "a treaty ancillary to any of the Treaties", and could not come under this clause, which as far as I can see only applies to treaties concluded as part of the EU foreign relations. In fact, none of the sources quoted support what the paragraph asserts. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking along the lines of your current revision (that Gibraltar is in similar position to Aland - ToL can enter into force without its ratification/internal procedure, but will not apply to it in this case). When someone removed Gibraltar from the table of consultative votes (and if you insist on your revision - please add it in the table after Aland - that's what I was going to do then) I tought to put it back in, but before doing this I opened Talk:Treaty of Lisbon/Archive_3#Consultative_votes.

There in the second link (citation 3 here above) you see that it is stated that the Gibraltar government responded that it does not need to ratify the treaty and that UK ratification is sufficient (something along these lines). That seemed strange to me - as you see (in the link for Gibraltar Laws) for the previous treaties and enlargements there were specific Gibraltar procedures, and as noted in the Treaty of Accession 2005 article - Gibraltar ratification is listed below UK just as Aland is listed below Finland, etc.

Then I saw the quoted text in the 2006 ammendment and IMHO it confirms the Grahn source - eg. ToL will enter into force for Gibraltar along with the UK entry into-force automaticaly, without additional Gibraltar acts.

I see that you don't agree with this, but let me explain my reasoning: The 1972 ordinance (later ammended multiple times and renamed to Act) basicaly entacts that in Gibraltar will be enforced a particular set of Treaties and also entacts that there are exemptions in their application (like non-participation in EU VAT, etc.). This set of treaties (parts of treaties where there are some exemptions) is listed in details in paragraph 2. It starts with the pre-1972 treaties (listed in the separate "Schedule 1"), the UK accession treaties and then with subsequent ammendments in the years the list defining the term Treaties in the act grows to include the next enlargement treaties, ammendment treaties, EEA foundation treaty, etc. The 2006 ammendment besides the BG/RO enlargemnt treaty added the quote we discuss now.

There is no mention in the quote/ammendment of "EU foreign relations" (I think because it covers not only these cases, but also others). Some commas/brackets are appearently missing and that's why it looks very tangled - it handles multiple possible scenarious in a single sentence. If we add some commas/brackets for clarity the quote will be as follows: 'any other Treaty entered into by any of the Communities (with or without any of the member States), or entered into, as a treaty ancillary to any of the Treaties, by the United Kingdom.' "any of the Communities" obviously means EURATOM or European Community (as defined in sentence 1 of paragraph 2 - there ECSC is also listed, but it is currently merged into the EC). The expretion "with or without any of the member States" covers both cases of Community treaties - these that cover only Community maters (like pure trade agreements) and thus are signed only by the EC without the member states and the cases where the treaty covers both EC competencies and member state competencies - such treaties are signed by the member states and the EC (like SAA pacts with the Balkan states). So up to here we both agree that treaties between the EC(with or without member states) and a foreign states are covered by the quote.

The second part deals with (re-phrased) 'any other Treaty entered into, by the United Kingdom, as a treaty ancillary to any of the Treaties'. Here any of the the Treaties is defined (by paragraph 2) as all treaties listed above in the paragraph above the quote (points (a) to (n) plus those from Schedule 1 - I think that this covers pratctically all of these), so this includes the Treaty on European Union (paragraph 2(1)(k)) and the Treaty establishing the European Community (schedule 1, point 2).

The full name of the Treaty of Lisbon is "Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community" - so it fits the definition of 'a treaty ancillary to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community', right? If not, please explain what means "a treaty ancillary to any of the Treaties". Alinor (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ancillary means secondary and supporting, and would (probably) include stuff like the Brussels Convention and EU trade agreements. But I gather that the phrase ("any other treaty...") has been copied-and-pasted from the corresponding British statute. If the UK proper needs to amend its law for Lisbon to give Lisbon force in domestic law, so does Gibraltar.

Under the dualist conception of international law which is used in the UK and Gibraltar, a treaty can be ratified without being incorporated into domestic law. The UK deal with Gibraltar's foreign relations and signed Lisbon on Gibraltar's behalf. As a consequence it applies to Gib in international law. But the UK Parliament ratification only applies to Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so the Gibraltarians need their own local law. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

So, as I see it - the question is if "amending" treaty is considered as "ancillary" to the treaty it ammends. According to your description it is not, thus we should keep Gibraltar listed in the second table. (If amending=ancillary then we should remove it and put back a rephrased explanation with the quote.) Alinor (talk) 06:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This is getting way out of hands. The only support for the theory that Gibraltar has to vote separately on the treaty is an interpretation of another law by some Wikipedia user. It's not reported in any other media or government source. We even have a source (itself not terribly reliable, though) explicitly saying that WP is wrong on this account. As such, keeping it in the article is a blatant violation of both WP:OR and WP:RS. We are not supposed to discuss here what is or is not ancillary, whatever that means; if you claim that the UK ratification of the Lisbon treaty does not apply to Gibraltar, find a reputable source saying so, and only then it can be added to the article. — Emil J. 10:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I've never said that the UK's ratification doesn't apply to Gibraltar, but owing the the UK and Gibraltar's dualist approach to international both have to pass domestic legislation incorporating if a treaty, such as the Lisbon Treaty, is to be incorporated into their respective domestic laws. In the case of Gibraltar this is, essentially, a technical requirement.

If you wish to remove Gibraltar, it's no sweat of my back. But coincidentally where are the sources for Aland? I can't see anywhere in the Lisbon Treaty that conditions its application to Aland. As far as I can see, Finland signed the treaty for the whole of its territory and the treaty will apply to Aland when it comes into force. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A fairly explicit and recent source for Åland is right there in our table: [10]. — Emil J. 12:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ratification - France

the comment in the article asserting that "Ireland has been the only member state to hold a
referendum on the treaty," is incorrect. France also held referendum as well as at least one
other /member state, which, at the moment I cannot recall. Please correct your data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.128.204.189 (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You are perhaps thinking of the Constitution (different treaty).--Boson (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Link: Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. — Emil J. 10:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Timetable: "1 January 2009: Intended date of entry into force"?

I know so little about this subject that I won't edit what seems to be a typo on the year under the Timetable section, but it says elsewhere that it's 1-1-2010 (which makes "intended" make more sense.) (Sh/C)ould someone with more authority correct this? PJV (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The date is correct, this was the original intention when the treaty was signed. Obviously, we are past that date, so it's no longer possible to achieve. — Emil J. 09:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

More on Czech pres

http://www.irishexaminer.com/world/kfaumhaukfql/rss2/

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20091009/tpl-uk-eu-lisbon-czech-q-a-43a8d4f.html

Apparently he wants opt outs before signing.Khajidha (talk) 00:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Deposition of Poland

I have yet to see a source that states the ratification documents have been deposited in Rome. We should refrain from altering the table to reflect final deposition until we have a source for that. The president's signature on the instrument of ratification is not enough, the phsycial presence of the documents in Rome is key. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 12:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

100% agree. Unfortunately there's been a fair bit of jumping the gun. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't change maps without reading the summary: "Green: Ratified (signed by head of state)". --Kolja21 (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

And the fact that the map could be entirely green and still no be into force as the instruments of ratification are lacking doesn't bother you? — Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Of cause not. In this map green stands for "signed by head of state". This map is used in multiple wikipedias. So if you don't like this map, use an other one. --Kolja21 (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Have now corrected the image summary and the image (again). Deposition with Italian government is the final step in the ratification process. Signing by Head of State is only the second last. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You have changed the summary - and a lot of articles had been wrong for a few hours. --Kolja21 (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Besides, a lot of countries have not had the treaty ratified by the head of state. For example, no laws or treaties whatsoever are ratified by the Swedish head of state. Instead, the parliament takes care of those things. So if green means "ratified by head of state", then Sweden needs to be in another colour. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC))

Poland has signed and ratified the Lisbon treaty. This is confirmed by BBC News and other news sources, see here for conformation. This leaves Czech Republic not yet ratified the Lisbon treaty. Please update the map again, along with the correct section of the article. Jonfr (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Not until they've lodged their instrument of ratification they haven't. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That is exacly what they did do today. The Poland has made the final step in the process, there are no others to take. There are plenty of news sources that affirm this, here is one of them, here is a other one. The EU web page has not been updated due to the weekend. I expect it to be updated on Monday. Jonfr (talk) 02:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Those sources aren't bothering about legalities, they are trying to talk about political realities. Here at wikipedia we are more precise than the mainstream media, we care about the law. Article that state Ireland has ratified the Treaty are as wrong as articles that say Poland has. Ireland needs votes in their parliaments and the assent of the head of state + deposition. Poland has to deposit the ratification documents in Rome - no source has yet confirmed that. These are required steps, what the mainstream media says is irrelevant, only official sources (EU website or Polish foreign ministry etc.) should be used and the actual ratification steps should be observed. Regarding Poland, once a person can cite a source that claims the documents have been deposited, we should change the table and map. If we do it before then, we are jumping the gun. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 06:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Bullshit! You might as well wait until the document hanging on a wall in the Italian government. :d Poland has finally ratified yesterday. No paranoia please! Incidentally, the German document has not yet arrived in Rome too. No normal thinking person would question though that Germany has ratified. --Tolgawingies (talk) 09:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it has arrived, the official source cited above states, that the German ratification was deposited the same day it was signed. Yes, it is political reality that Poland has already ratified, but we'll need to be as accurate as possible with the legalities (because after all, political reality is also that Ireland will certainly ratify, but the process will take a little time). When the official page is again updated with the confirmation of the date of deposition of the Polish ratification document, then we're free to update. Until then, what's the need to hurry? The article already provides all the relevant information about the current situation, and that should be all that counts.

I totally agree with Themanwithoutapast. To tell that the country has completed all the necessary procedures it requires to ratify, sign (if necessary under the national law) and deposit the treaty by that country. Poland has ratified and signed the treaty, but it has not deposited it. Saying that "Germany has deposited the treaty in the same day it has ratified/signed it" doesn't prove Poland has done the same in any way. We don't play a lottery here. Only then the deposition will be a known fact it will be possible to respectively edit the map. Plus I also agree that if the map might be all green but still not all the procedures can be finished that are required for the treaty to come into force, this would be misleading. So if you want to change the description of the map I suggest this class.: "All procedures have been finished"; "Deposition required"; "Sign of the head of state necessary"; "Ratification in progress"; "Ratification cancelled". All the other Wiki's articles should be changed respectively. Giedrius S. (talk) 10:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

--131.188.24.174 (talk) 09:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone remember this page? Germany has deposited as of 25 September, Ireland, Poland and the Czech Republic are still pending. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ireland

It seems the information about Ireland can be updated:

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.aspx?F=DAL20091008.XML&Dail=30&Ex=All&Page=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.38.121 (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Not quite yet. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please update the article to explain what remains to happen in Ireland? For someone who is not very much into Irish politics (like me), the situation is rather confusing:

• The table lists two remaining "presidential assents", but I cannot tell a difference between the two.
• The table says the Dáil and Seanad must pass a "statute bill". If the debate from the link above was not about the statute bill (what was it about?), then something is missing in the table. Otherwise the line could be made green.

Maybe someone can add a little info on these points. --Berntie (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure even that many people who are involved in Irish politics know this. Normally it's the kind of technical stuff I'd prefer to out of the articles, but here it is for anyone who's interested:

Due to a Supreme Court decision certain changes to the EU treaties may require an amendment to the Constitution. These amendments have, thus far, come in the form of authorisations to ratify a certain treaty: much along the lines of: "The State may ratify the Treaty of Lisbon, agreed signed ...". The procedure follows is this:

1. The Dail and Senate debate and pass a bill to amend the Constitution. The bill, is passed in a referendum, will authorise the state to ratify the treaty, but it doesn't do anything else to progress that ratification.

2. The referendum is held (2 October) and the official results are published in the official gazette (this was done on 6 October).

3. Within a week of the results being published in the gazette, a legal objection (called a "referendum petition") may be lodged with the High Court. If no objections are lodged the President will sign the bill. The last day for objections is tomorrow (12 October). If there are no objections the President will sign the bill into law on Tuesday (13 October).

4. Dail Eireann approve the terms of the treaty by resolution. This is required for all treaties which may have an impact on public funds, but has no other legal consequences. (In fact, this has already been done.)

5. The Dail and Senate debate and pass an ordinary bill. This bill will amend or replace (it hasn't been published yet) the European Communities Act, 1972. Ireland is a dualist state and this act will incorporate the Lisbon Treaty into our domestic law.

6. The President signs the bill, any questions over its constitutionality having been satisfied by the amendment to the Constitution.

7. The instrument of ratification will be prepared, signed by the President and sent to Rome. Once there it will be deposited with the Italian government and the process is complete.

It should be all over before the end of the month. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so far so good. That means the above link ([11]) concerns point 4. Shouldn't we add another line (like "Dáil resolution" or something) to Ireland in the "At a glance" table? --Berntie (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Polish "Presidential Assent" date

The table tells that Polish Presidential Assent was granted on 9 April 2008. But the Polish president also did something today. I realise that he did something on both dates, so shouldn't both of them be mentioned somehow, since both seem to be related to the ratification process? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC))

Today's (10 October) signature is the authorization for deposition. For simplicity's sake this is not shown, merely the actual deposition (which usually occurs the same day or a few days later). Unfortunately there has been continuous confusion about these signatures (see archives). Khajidha (talk) 22:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

One thing is the presidential assent (to a bill approving the treaty), another thing is the presidential signature of the country's intrument of ratification. The first signature is part of the internal constitutional procedure of the country in question, whereby the bill approving of the treaty, passed by the Houses of Parliament, becomes law. The second is a signature on a document of international character, usually signed by each country's Head of State, announcing to the other parties that the country in question (having completed its internal constitutional procedures that are required to authorize ratification), thereby ratifies and binds itself to the treaty, solemnly promissing to carry out its obligations under the same faithfully. That document is only issued after all steps required by the country's constitutional norms as a precondition for ratification have been met. And then there is one final step, that is the delivery of the istrument of ratification to the Government that has been appointed to fullfil the role of depository of all instruments of ratification (the Italian Goverment). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.208.67 (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

When does Poland plan to deposit the treaty to the Italian government? Any specific date? —Terrence and Phillip 20:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably tomorrow. I imagine the Italian foreign ministry was closed for the weekend. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Poland has now deposited its ratification instrument to Rome. 204.108.96.21 (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Concerning Klaus

Hi all, I tried to draft something about Klaus refusal to sign and request for an opt-out. I post it here since I suspect someone could say it contains original research... Feel free to use it:

Beside the constitutional challenge president Klaus, notwithstanding Czech parliament approval of the treaty, asked for an opt-out from the charter of fundamental rights of the European Union. He said that, were the charter to gain full legal strength, it would jeopardize Beneš decrees, and in particular the decree that confiscated, without giving compensation, the properties of Germans and Hungarians during WWII. These decrees are still part of the domestic law of both Czech Republic and Slovakia (the latter not having requested any exemption from the charter). It should be noted that this argument had been already invoked by right wind populists, when both countries were ready to accede to the European Union. In 2002 the EU Commission asked a legal opinion on compatibility of the decrees with the EU treaties. In the opinion it was argued that, were the Beneš decrees enacted today, they would breach EU treaties, but since they were enacted in 1945 their status would have been unaffected. The opinion quotes a sentence on this subject by the European Court of Human Rights in order to explain that, even if the EU, as the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, recognizes the right to ownership as a fundamental right, the treaties cannot have a retroactive effect:

“ As regards this preliminary issue, the Court observes that the expropriation had been carried out by authorities of former Czechoslovakia in 1946, as confirmed by the Bratislava Administrative Court in 1951, that is before 3 September 1953, the entry into force of the Convention, and before 18 May 1954, the entry into force of Protocol No. 1. Accordingly, the Court is not competent ratione temporis to examine the circumstances of the expropriation or the continuing effects produced by it up to the present date ”

In the opinion it's also noted that, even if those clause concerning property rights were enforceable, EU would not have any say on this as the Treaty establishing the European Community explicitly states (art. 295) that

“ This Treaty shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership. ”

This clause has been slightly reworded by the Lisbon Treaty in order to make it referring to both the TEU and TFEU treaties and is going to become art. 345 TFEU.

--Nick84 (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Not to diminish your effort or research on the topic, but I think this is just too much information for the article, which is itself already much too long for wiki standards. The article already notes that there is an issue with Klaus' signature. I don't think it is warranted to explain things beyond that Klaus' has demanded certain opt-outs from the Charter of Fundamental Rights. His motives aren't clear, despite the speculation that you explain in detail. Anyway, I doubt Klaus will achieve anything anyway. There are legal ways to compel him to sign the treaty (mentioned above on this talk page). I doubt however things will go that way, after the Constitutional Court rejects the second challenge in the next weeks, Klaus will very likely sign the treaty considering political and legal realities in the Czech Republic. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Klaus is at it again, this time reaching Wikipedia's current event portal. This article hints that the chances of Klaus signing the treaty may not happen, even if the Czech Republic is given an opt-out. —Terrence and Phillip 08:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Czech press is sceptical about veracity of the Times' story.[12] — Emil J. 11:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

@Themanwithoutapast Article length is another reason that made me post here rather than edit the article. Anyway I think that we should say something (edit: something more) about this "opt-out" request. --Nick84 (talk) 09:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

We can always create Poland and the Lisbon Treaty. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe even Czech Republic and the Lisbon Treaty -:) — Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL. I got confused with all these repeated questions about Poland. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

What about moving all the national issues with ratification in a separate article? --Nick84 (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea. The ratification part is already way too long. Moving it to a separate article while keeping a short summary here would be better. People who just want to get an overview of what the Reform Treaty is might not want to see lengthy sections on signatures of various presidents or Irish referenda. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC))

The article's length is over-inflated, mostly due to the ratification part. It would be better for the rader if this could be split into subarticles. —Terrence and Phillip 01:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

UK referendum

Recently, newspapers have published lots of articles on speculations of what will happen if

• there is a "no" vote in Dublin this week, or
• Lech Kaczyński won't ratify the treaty before spring 2010, or
• Václav Klaus won't ratify the treaty before spring 2010, and
• the Tory party win the next UK general elections.

The Tory party have promised a UK (+ Gibraltar?) referendum should the treaty not be ratified in all EU countries, and a majority of the UK public is likely to vote no. Since there is currently so much speculation on this matter, shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere in this article? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC))

No, because wiki is about facts, not speculation. The UK has already ratified the treaty and there is nothing the Tories can do about it. Only if the treaty fails, a new treaty (if such one could come forward) could be subject to a treaty. Also, if the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified (which will happen before year's end if Ireland votes yes), then the UK would have the chance to have a referendum on leaving the EU. But again, that is speculation and doesn't belong into this article. P.S. Both the Polish President and Czech President have stated that they will ratify the treaty if Ireland says yes. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 08:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

When did Czech President stated that he will ratify the treaty if Ireland says yes?--Horaljan (talk) 10:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Here: [13] "CZECH PRESIDENT Vaclav Klaus has signaled he will not sign the Lisbon treaty unless it is ratified by Ireland, even if his country's top court rules it is line with Czech law. "Only afterwards it would be the presidential signature's turn. I have no reason to be another European to urge Ireland to do something. Simply, no change can occur without Ireland changing its position," said Mr Klaus... Same for the Polish president.Themanwithoutapast (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

But that's the converse implication, you are misinterpreting it. Klaus says here that Irish ratification is a necessary, rather than sufficient, condition for his own signature. Klaus also mentioned other necessary conditions at various times, the most recent being resolution of the new complaint at the Constitutional Court, and that's not going to happen any time soon. — Emil J. 17:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is about facts, and it is a fact that there currently are lots of newspaper articles speculating on this. I'm not sure in which way it wouldn't be factual to mention that other people speculate about things. And as far as I know, Václav Klaus has only stated that an Irish yes is one condition for signing, not that it is the only condition, whereas I think Lech Kaczyński has stated that an Irish yes is the one and only condition for ratifying. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC))

Reread wiki guidelines. Wiki may not be used to state speculation, even if you say it's just speculation. You report facts, not the fact that there is speculation about something. If we were to go down that road, people could start to present the fact that they speculate about something... which would be a total mess. The only fact that really matters for this article is that the UK has ratified the Lisbon Treaty + there really is nothing British politicians can do about that now. They can hold a referendum on the next treaty, not on this one. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 12:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not clear what the referendum promised by the British Conservatives would be about. The British instrument of ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon is already signed by Queen Elizabeth II and deposited in Rome. At this point, the ratification cannot be rescinded. Britain is already a party to the treaty, as are the other signatory States that have ratified it, even if the ratifications have not yet been completed by all Member States, and even if the treaty has not entered into force yet. At this point, Britain can no longer take back its ratification, that has been already deposited with the Italian Government. What it can do at this point (i.e., now that the British ratification is irreversible under international law), is to hold a referendum on leaving the European Union should the Treaty of Lisbon enter into force. It is within the sovereignty of any member State to leave the EU (which entails the denounciation of all the treaties upon which the Union is founded). Britain can withdraw from the EU, and thus withdraw from the treaties; but it cannot pretend that it has not ratified them. And a ratification, once given, cannot be rescinded. Even if Britain were to leave the EU today (and thus cease being a party to the treaties), it is a fact that it has already ratified the Treaty of Lisbon, and so that ratification, as one of the preconditions for the Treaty to enter into force, is a precondition that has already been met, and there is nothing Britain can do to change that fact. The pretense that a country can take back a ratification freely just because the treaty has not yet entered into force is rubbish in the eyes of international law.--189.4.208.67 (talk) 03:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's that clear. Though it may be the case that ratification is complete, a state's consent to be bound is normally conditional on the treaty coming into force. Before that time the state may possibly withdraw its consent to be bound, and even restate its consent to be bound with reservations. That's when it starts to get complicated. In any case, the legal situation is sufficiently complicated that Wikipedia cannot make any assumptions as to what is legally possible.--Boson (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

As suggested above, the ratification details have now been put into a separate article called Ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon

This has led to a substantial reduction in the size of the article and improved readability at least as far as I am concerned. Given that only Ireland and the Czech Republic are still outstanding, I think it was also a prudent move. I have expanded the lead in to the old ratification section explaining the ratification process and adding details of what is still outstanding. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 12:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It should have been done with more precision. Just two examples: the involvement of national constitutional courts (Germany) is omitted. Too much weight is given to the "deposition", called here the international ratification process - in reality, it's much easier: once the ratification process is over, the instrument of ratification is deposited... --DaQuirin (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Please fell free to add information regarding constitutional court challenges. They are however not part of the legal ratification process, so we would require a separate section on them. Regarding "deposition", I am not quite sure what you mean. The international ratification process requires several steps, physical deposition of the documents is the last one. I think it is necessary to explain that someone has to authorize the physical deposition first. Best, Themanwithoutapast (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It goes without saying that the ratification process has both legal and political implications, as we now see with the Czech part of the story. The decision of the Karlsruhe court was above all the legal precondition for the end of the ratification process in Germany, once the challenges had been made. As for Germany, the Karlsruhe decision will heavily influence the future interpretation of the Lisbon treaty. And what do you mean exactly with the international ratification process and the strange division between two main processes: A. the national ratification process and B. the international ratification process (deposition)? There is only one ratification process in each country. After its completion, the instrument of ratification is to be deposited - and that's it. There is no "second process". --DaQuirin (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The German constitutional court decision has only implications for Germany. It had no implications for Germany's ratification procedure, the treaty was ratified "as is." The international ratification process, in contrast to the national ratification process, is a two-step process requiring the authorization of the deposition of the instrument of ratification by the relevant national authority and the actual physical deposition. It can only start once the national ratification process in a member state has been completed. Anyway, I am not quite sure what we are discussing here. You aren't actually pointing out any errors in the explanation, are you? If you think the ratification process required to be completed by each member state isn't described clear enough, you are certainly free to make changes to the explanation. Cheers, Themanwithoutapast (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

As I understand, you have a special interest here for the deposition aspect - which is indeed a technical aspect of the procedure, once the ratification process is over. Contrary to the political problems involved (in Poland and the Czech Republic), it was of minor importance here. The controversial interpretation of the Lisbon treaty by the German court is an important legal document and will certainly influence the understanding and the intepretation of the Treaty. --DaQuirin (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Deposition is an important part of the process as clearly shown by the ratification process in Poland (not sure why you mention the Czech Republic as well in this regard). The decision by the Bundesverfassungsgericht is certainly important for German lawyers in Germany dealing with German constitutional law, it has however no bearing on the ratification process and certainly no influence on the interpretation of the treaty within Europe in general. I consider the sentences in the ratification section in the article dealing with the decision of the Bundesverfassungsgericht therefore redundant to the separate section on constitutional challenges in the article. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 07:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Deposition is an important part - well, the Polish president had political considerations to stop the procedure (the second Irish referendum) that should be mentioned because otherwise the part is unclear. Maybe you should accept that an important Treaty like this is a legal document of course, but its creation, ratification and interpretation are controlled or even dominated by political considerations. Instead of the textbook explanations about ratification processes in general, we should focus on the actual problems and the (summarized) history of the yet unfinished Lisbon ratification process: referendums in Ireland, the Court decision in Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic. Now, when we have a separate part on the interpretation of the treaty, it's even better, and there is no redundance in separating the history of the ratification process and the "interpretation of the treaty". Besides, I think, that the raging debate on a future Lisbon or "Post-Lisbon referendum" in Britain should be mentioned. Since we do not have a "Critics section" on Lisbon, it's difficult to find a place... --DaQuirin (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Irish president signs

Ireland has fully completed the process of surrender to the Lisbon Treaty. The country's president signed the document, making it legally binding. [14] Please, correct the map. --Lumidek (talk) 08:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, the Irish president only signed the bill that changes the Irish constitution. They still need to ratify the treaty in parliament, have another presidential assent and deposit the instrument of ratification in Rome. Will take at least until the end of the month if not longer. 77.116.31.197 (talk) 12:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Map colours

Please see the discussion I have started at File_talk:Treaty_of_Lisbon_ratification.svg#New_colours. Thanks AndrewRT(Talk) 15:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning up the talk page

Should we maybe clean up the talk page to remove all the stuff regarding ratifacation? after all there's a new article out on ratification, so ratification related talk shouldn't be in this article --Mark, 2:06 AM PDT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.65.43 (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I would support archiving the material. It should not be deleted, but it is really distracting for it to remain here now. Khajidha (talk) 11:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Expulsion of Czech Republic from EU?

Some German politicans frustrated over Klaus's stuborness want to oust Klaus from the ratification process or kick out the Czech Republic itself from the EU. Article here While there is discussion to have the Czech prime minister sign the treaty instead, is it possible one's defiance could result in his whole country expelled from the EU? 204.108.96.21 (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no way of expelling the Czech republic from the EU - and no German politician brought up this topic. The Times article is just one of many ways of the British conservative media to add some fuel to the Lisbon debate. --DaQuirin (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Besides, there is no defiance here in the strict sense because nobody can order Czech Republic to ratify the Treaty. If the Czechs decide to block the ratification, they have full right to do so. --Botev (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

A correction: the Czechs, as represented by their democratically elected parliament, decided that they agree with the treaty. It's one madman who tries to block it. — Emil J. 11:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

But that man is the president, and has the authority to do it. His signature is after all needed on the ratification instrument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.4.208.67 (talk) 01:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Lisbon Treaty structure.svg

To use the German recycling "green point" in this graph, seems quite silly to me. --ALE! (talk) 11:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you think of any symbol or illustration technique that might symbolise the concept of "amendment" in a more effective way? - SSJ ☎ 01:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The word "will" and "is" in the initial paragraph is incorrect

Someone has returned the mistake in the article that claimed that the treaty "will" do the things written in it. That's incorrect because such a statement seems to imply that the treaty will be adopted which is not known at this moment. Many signs indicate that the treaty will never be adopted.

I urge all editors to avoid excessive speculation and pushing NPOV. Thanks, LM --Lumidek (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not a question of POV but one of grammar: if ratified, the treaty will amend the treaties it is meant to amend.CyrilleDunant (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Cyrille, except that the sentence "If ratified" was added by me. --Lumidek (talk) 09:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

For me a treaty is void until ratified, so this "if ratified" is redundant. I left the "if" thinking it would be seen as an acceptable compromise, and the matter left there. Obviously I was wrong.CyrilleDunant (talk) 10:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Some countries have a wrong colour on the ratification map

See [15]. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

Klaus signed

Sky News [16], Associated Press [17], Reuters [18] reporting Czech President Vaclav Klaus signed Lisbon 3pm Czech time, 3 November 2009. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraph

The Introductory paragraph says ...

"... signed in Lisbon on 13 December 2007 designed to change the workings of the European Union (EU). The treaty was ratified by all EU member states, with the Czech Republic the last to sign on 3 November 2009.[1] It entered into force on 1 December of the same year."

... here "1 December of the same year" is ambiguous as to which year it refers to. Raghuveer 05:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghuveer.v (talk • contribs) 05:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC) 

I don't see how it's ambiguous. It's quite clear that it's referring to the year 2009, as it was stated, "... the last to sign on November 3rd, 2009..." then goes on to say "1 December of the same year" (2009).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Elektrisk (talk • contribs) 09:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Mixed and confusing language regarding The Council of Ministers and the European Council

-Picking through the main article is something of a minefield when talking about these two bodies. At times the Council of Ministers is confusingly called the EU Council, why not the normal names it has? "Specificially there are several areas where according to the Basic Law the German representative on the Council must act only on the instruction of the Bundestag and/or the Bundesrat of Germany." As well as the typo on "Specifically", it is not clear which Council this applies to, or is it both?

- "*More powerful Parliament by extending codecision with the Councils to more areas of policy." Councils? Surely not? The European Council has no legislative role in codecision, nor does it gain one (as far as I am aware) under Lisbon. As codecision is a legislative process, which "Councils" are being referred to? It should be made clear. -"The legislative power and relevance of the directly elected European Parliament would, under the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, be increased by extending codecision procedure with the Council to new areas of policy." Not clear which council is being referred to. People may not know that only the Council of Ministers takes part in legislative action on the basis of codecision. The section is misleading as people are likely to think you are talking about the European Council (as that is the last mention of "the council" that readers see).

-"The new High Representative would also become a Vice-President of the Commission, the administrator of the European Defence Agency and the Secretary-General of the Council." Again which council?

I think the problem stems from the times the European Council is referred to as "the Council". It is normal for "the Council" to mean the Council of Ministers, but not the European Council. My proposal would be to only refer to "the Council" when talking about the Council of Ministers and NOT to use the expression when referring to the European Council. 81.132.161.64 (talk) 09:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

To avoid confusion, I would suggest replacing all references to "the Council" by references to "the European Council" and "the Council of the European Union", respectively. As an alternative we could use "the Council of Ministers" for "the Council of the European Union", but that would have to be clearly explained, and it might add to the confusion by adding a third term. --Boson (talk) 11:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The term "Council of Ministers" is far more widely used and is more self-explanatory (which is probably why journalists prefer this form). I strongly support using this form, perhaps with a pipe trick to the grandiose title. --Red King (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I see the Europa Web site now seems to (increasingly?) use "EU Council" for the institution. Whatever we go for, I am wondering if we should have a sort of glossary, prominently advertised and easily accessible from all relevant articles, showing the various (EU and non-EU) institutions with the official names and the various synonyms, including: European Council; Council of the European Union (EU Council, Council of Ministers; the Council); Council of Europe (independent of the EU); Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (Committee of Ministers, previously (?) Council of Ministers); Nordic Council of Ministers. I can't think of a very good way of implementing this. Boson (talk) 06:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Two choices: a strip [that goes along the bottom of every article (normally unexpanded)] or a side box. Either would lead to a glossary article. I prefer the side box idea. Have a look at Template:Buddhism as a pro-forma. --Red King (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

We could just add a Glossary line to Template:Politics of the European Union which is already at the side of most articles (including this one). --Red King (talk) 11:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that some of the issues the IP addressed are still on. I try to mend them having in mind what has been discussed here. I will use Council of ministers predominantly as it is the best to differentiate this institution from the European Council. Tomeasy _{T C} 10:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you guys would like to review whether the use of Council of Ministers in all cases makes sense. I am particularly unhappy with the section on this body, because there is a link via the Main-template to the associated article, which is called Council of the European Union. I have to admit that my action here is inconsistent, and hope you can improve. Tomeasy _{T C} 10:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, the new double majority voting rights do apply for both Councils, don't they? I made edits assuming this. Please correct me if I am wrong. Tomeasy _{T C} 10:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I am done. Please review. I added two comments where I did not know which comment was meant. Tomeasy _{T C} 11:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

News on Åland Islands

A Finnish newspiece here [19]. Just to inform you what's going on: I added the mid-November date to the template, because we used to have the coming dates before the treaty was ratified in other parliaments as well. While the treaty will have to have 2/3 of the parliament's support in Åland, it is likely to pass in the 30 seat parliament even if there were some tough negotiations. Provincial Governor Lindbäck believes opponents of the treaty will have atleast 5 of the 30 seats. While Treaty of Lisbon will come into effect even without Åland's approval, it may even lead to the exemption of Åland from the whole union, as Finland would be penalised for not putting directives into effect in its territory.

They will vote on the issue between 10th and 15th November. Weird if similar news aren't heard from Gibraltar? --Pudeo' 23:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I brought up this issue here where it seems that Gibraltar doesn't vote on Lisbon. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Also see this discussion of the same matter Talk:Treaty_of_Lisbon#Gibraltar. Alinor (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't get what Lindbäck says about Åland since the interview is in Finnish, but there is no timetable set in the parliament for any vote. It will begin its autumn sessions on 2 November 2009, and then we'll see what happens. Hawklord (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, no date has been set. However, as you mentioned they begin their sessions in November, Lindbäck says it's likely it's one of the top priorities and will be voted on between 10th and 15th November.--Pudeo' 11:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Things are moving fast now on Åland, so now I also think we will see a decision very soon. Hawklord (talk) 20:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

How/where did you obtain this information Hawklord? I can't find any recent news source this. Podex (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realize that you are actually fróm Åland Hawklord. So what is the news? Should this be added to the article (or probably the Ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon article). Podex (talk) 03:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I added an update to the relevant section. I have been to some political meetings about the Treaty to keep well informed. It's also well covered by the local media when something happens.Hawklord (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Sequence shown in File talk:Lisbon Treaty ratification progress.gif

Am I wrong or is the sequence in which countries are meant to have ratified the treaty? Just as one example, did Sweden ratify after Germany? as far as I know the opposite is the case. I think this tabel is correct, but apparently not in agreement with the animated gif. Tomeasy _{T C} 09:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The Swedish parliament said yes after the German parliament said yes, but the Swedish parliament said yes before the German president said yes. The table seems to be mostly based on parliamentary votes as opposed to actual ratification, with an exception for at least the Czech Republic. seems more useful to me. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 09:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC))

OK, having identified the mistaken date and clarified the above confusion, I think we are close to resolving the issue. Indeed,

I would like to just say none of these animated maps have been based on parliamentary votes. The original map was based on presidential and royal assent dates. Urpunkt (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ratification is what this map is about. So, it's pretty clear what the sequence has to be. Germany ratified when the treaty was signed by its president.

Yes, the new map is helpful in the sense that it is correct (at least as fa as I can see). However, I find it less aesthetic and also the last frame is missing (i.e., the ratification of the Czech Republic). Perhaps these issues can be fixed. Tomeasy _{T C} 11:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ratification is what this map is about. So, it's pretty clear what the sequence has to be. Germany ratified when the treaty was signed by its president.

Not exactly. Originally this was the criterion I used for changing colour. Full assent of national governments. But a map based on deposition dates was requested as a replacement.

There is no frame for the Czech Republic because its instrument of ratification has not been deposited yet. There's nothing missing. I'm going to slow the speed down though. Urpunkt (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, there are some things that I do not understand. Is the ratification process not finished when the head of state signs after the legislative has approved the treaty? Has the Czech Republic not ratified the treaty on 3 November? After introducing somehow the concept of deposition, which I admit was new to me, the related section says that the Czech Republic ratified on 3 November. Now, the caption of the figure talks about ratification, while you mean that no frame for the Czech republic should be added. I admit that I do not have a clear picture of what's going on, but isn't my feeling correct that at least some parts do not fit together? Tomeasy _{T C} 17:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Is the ratification process not finished when the head of state signs after the legislative has approved the treaty? Not quite. They have to do the paperwork and send it to Rome (Italy holds the presidency) and then Rome reports that it has been received and that everything is in order. I did the dates for these because that was requested. You're right there is an inconsistency that might imply that the C.Republic hasn't ratified the treaty, but it hasn't got a deposition date yet, so there is nothing to add. If we were to add the government assent date for it (3rd november), we'd have to add the equivalent for every other country to retain consistency. The instrument should be deposited on 13^th November so it'll only be a week until I can add a frame turning it green. Urpunkt (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Side note: Italy does not hold the presidency, at this moment that is Sweden.

Also: It was not government assent that happened on 3 November in Czechia, rather the president (as the head of state) gave his signature. The president is not the head of government in European (and many other) countries. Governments made their decisions amid the intergovernmental summit in Lisbon, which is to be differentiated from the ratification process.

I know, these corrections do not solve our problem. May I ask who wanted you to base the map on the deposition date; where is this discussion? I do not agree with this decision, but I should pobably read through the related discussion first.

At the moment my point would be that the last decision has been taken when the head of state signs. In the remainder of the steps, nobody has the right to change the ratification decision anymore. Therefore, my (current) point of view is that Czechia ratified on 3 November and not a later date. Tomeasy _{T C} 19:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is on Talk:Ratification_of_the_Treaty_of_Lisbon. The map was intended primarily for Ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon. We have some terminological confusion here. I am aware Vaclav Klaus is the Czech head of state and not the Czech head of government. I wasn't using the term government in the sense of separate branches of government but in the sense of the full organisation of state. The original map was made with the dates of the final stage of political approval in each country which I variously described as or national assent or full governmental assent. It's a legitimate use of the term. What I meant in any event was the sufficient approval of branches of government of the state in question. The [[20]] shows the approval of heads of state, use that one if you prefer. All the dates were taken from Ratification_of_the_Treaty_of_Lisbon#At a glance. They are the final dates for each country which are marked 'Granted'. Urpunkt (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

When talking about a ratification process whose purpose is to legitimate a governmental decision (obviously by something else than the government in its strict sense), it is particularly senseless to use for this approval the term governmental assent, based on the colloquial understanding that government equals state. And, the confusion of what a president is, is all to common here on Wikipedia, not to give you this hint. It was not meant as an insult, rather I am happy that you already knew what I was writing :-)

The link to the talk page does not really bring me to a discussion on which date is the date of ratification. Instead, people on this discussion seem to assume that deposition must be used. I want to challenge this. Has there been a discussion yet about my subject?

The link to the original map does not work. In any case this map does not illustrate what I would like to see implemented. This map is based on the decisions by the legislative organs. We have seen in many cases that the ratification can still be jeopardized after this. By the way, the original map is what I came here for to complain. So, how can you propose it to fit my needs. Tomeasy _{T C} 17:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

the map ToL_Progress.gif is not based on the decisions of the legislatures but by the final stage of approval in each country. It shows the approval of heads of state, though not in Bulgaria where the legislature's approval was the final stage of approval. I have made this point three times in separate places now, so I feel I need to stress the point a bit.

Urpunkt (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

However it looks like I may have messed it up in some other way :/

Urpunkt (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Now, things are really getting confused, and if I am not completely mistaken, you are confusing them. Sorry. I started this section criticizing that ToL_Progress.gif shows first Germany and then Sweden. Your reply (explaining why this is) was The Swedish parliament said yes after the German parliament said yes, but the Swedish parliament said yes before the German president said yes. Tomeasy _{T C} 17:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I never said this. Nothing like it. Urpunkt (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I citated from the first reply to my first posting. I see now that this was just an IP that abandoned the discussion, and apparently not you. Instead, i overlooked your first comment. Whatever I said in between was based on believing that the original map was based on the legislatures, as claimed by the IP. OK, I shall now assume that this is wrong, unless the IP comes back and convinces us of the opposite. Tomeasy _{T C} 18:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

How does this fit with your most recent statement that the same map is not based on the decisions of the legislatures?

Or the other way around: If your last statement was true (i.e., It shows the approval of heads of state), then why does Germany show up before Sweden. Germany's head of state approved after Sweden's, or not? And again, we are where I started this section ;-) Tomeasy _{T C} 17:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Since you are just here. Perhaps, we can fix it right away :-) Tomeasy _{T C} 17:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay there was an edit conflict which has confused things more. I am doing my best to explain. None at these maps, at any stage, have been built using the dates of approval of legislatures as a basis.

I did not make a mistake with the dates myself in fact. Germany's president approved the treaty, according to Ratification_of_the_Treaty_of_Lisbon on 8th October 2008. What happened is I copied this date without thinking. What is the ACTUAL date for Germany's presidential assent? Urpunkt (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, having clarified the above confusion and identified the mistaken date, I think we are close to resolving the issue. Indeed, Horst Koehler did not sign in 2008, but on 23 September 2009 [21][22].

If this was now implemented correctly in the original map, would this map then show the correct sequence of when the final signatures took place? If so, I would prefer that map, but this may be another discussion ... Tomeasy _{T C} 18:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[ToL_Progress.gif] is now corrected and should show the correct sequence. This map is based on the criteria you want. The problem was with confusion with terminology, the table at Ratification_of_the_Treaty_of_Lisbon#At a glance, and me repeating its error. Everything should be in order now provided no other dates from that table were wrong. Please can you check the sequence to see if it is right?

Sorry for being crabby and my mistake in copying that date. Urpunkt (talk) 04:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for staying and discussing with good faith all the way through. I added to the misunderstanding no less than you.

The map seems OK to me. I do not have a list where ratification dates are stated according to the definition that I prefer (i.e., final signature). Therefore, it is difficult to check the sequence. In the end of the process, however, I followed the news so much that I can say this part is correct.

Perhaps we should come to a conclusion here with the question which of the two maps, both presumably being correct by now, should be used. I am in favor of the original map.

Just in case you were trying this: [[:file:ToL_Progress.gif|ToL_Progress.gif]] Tomeasy _{T C} 08:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• As far as I could see the sequence seems to be correct, but the dates for Estonia and Finland are not. It is not July, but September, so 23/07/08 should be 23/09/08 and 30/07/08 should be 30/09/08. I guess it will be good if the map is correct. BloodIce (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• I'm really sorry about that, that was a typo. Fixed now.

Urpunkt (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Good job :-). I so much like this map now. BloodIce (talk) 13:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Council terminology

There were many instances in this article where reference was made to the Council, and it was unclear whether the Council of Ministers or the European Council was meant. On 7 November, I gave it a serious try to clarify all passages related.

I am pointing on this, because I had a few problems where I would appreciate if you review my changes:

1. The Council of Ministers is officially termed Council of the European Union, which is much more difficult for the reader to distinguish from the European Council. That's why I adopted the clearer term Council of Ministers. There, I ended in the unlucky situation that we have a section on this body in our article, with a main-template referring to the related article. As I did it, the main template now has a different title then the section. Please improve, if you like/can.
2. At two instances, I did not know which of the two bodies was meant. I added a comment in the source code (like this <!-- ? -->). I am sure that some people here can also clarify these two instances.
3. As far as I know, the new double majority voting rights do apply for both bodies, or does the European Council only decide unanimously? I made edits assuming the former. Please correct me if I am wrong. Tomeasy _{T C} 18:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

1) I agree there is some inconsistency with the main template but not sure how to resolve it. However, the position now is much clearer than it was before your edits. So I do see it as an improvement.

2) The first instance refers, I believe, to the European Council. The second, I believe, to the Council of Ministers.

3) Not 100% sure what you mean by "new double majority voting rights"? If you mean just increased use of QMV then the European Council also uses it, yes. Article 15 TEU for President of European Council, Article 17(7) TEU for President of the Commission, Article 18(1) for the High Representative. I am sure there are more, but not in the mood to hunt them out.

Hope this helps. Lwxrm (talk) 11:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, you helped.

3) I did not mean the extension of policy areas to which QMV applies. I was not sure whether QMV exists at all in the European Council. By my question, I meant the change of rules to determine what a QM is, do they apply to both councils. I understand your answer of as a confirmation of my assumption, i.e., QMV exists in the European Council, and the change of rules due to the Treaty of Lisbon applies to both councils equally. Can you reconfirm this? Tomeasy _{T C} 11:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now. Sorry for the confusion. Yes, the same rules apply to both Councils equally. Article 235(1) TFEU makes it clear that both Articles 16(4) and 238(2) TFEU governing the use of QMV in "the Council" also applies to the European Council. In addition, the protocol on transitional provisions (No 36) Article 3 also confirms that the same transitional rules of QMV apply to both Councils. I hate the renumbering, why oh why do I need to relearn all of these articles!? Anyhow, if I can be of any more assistance, just let me know! Lwxrm (talk) 13:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

2) I will make changes as you suggested but keep the comments in case somebody else wants to double-check. Tomeasy _{T C} 01:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed the comments. The two instances were clear. i do not know why I had trouble at first. One was with the Council President who only acts in relation to the European Council. (The Council of Minister will still be chaired by the 6-month rotating presidency). The second instance was obviously related to the Council of ministers, because it was linked to Council of the European Union. Anyway, thanks for your help. If you have an idea for 1), just go ahead ... Tomeasy _{T C} 01:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It is "The Treaty of Lisbon" but it is "as written in the treaty" -- "T" or "t"

I guess the heading make my point clear. I find numerous instances in the article where the word "treaty" is used an an ordinary noun but with a capital T. I think, this is wrong and I corrected it here and there, but now I have the feeling that this is consistently done wrong, and I get wary that my correction should be discussed first.

My stance: "The Treaty of Lisbon" is a name and therefore capitalized. However, when simply using the word treaty to refer to what is written in the Treaty of Lisbon, we must not capitalize it. Tomeasy _{T C} 12:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think I agree. When referring to the text of "the Treaty" it is still the proper noun being used. In the same way you can speak of a directive, when referring to a particular directive it is always the Directive. This seems to be consistent in academic writings. Check any number of journal articles/textbooks discussing any treaty.

By way of a more common example, when referring to Queen Elizabeth in England we also refer to matters relating to "the Queen" as opposed to "the queen". If it refers directly to the document, it should be capitalised. But I am in no way an expert in English grammar, and am willing to be proved wrong. Lwxrm (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I think there may be a difference between "normal" usage and legal (and possibly other academic) usage, where words like "Treaty" are capitalized in the document itself, and in discussions of the document. The EU itself similarly capitalizes significant words which have a special meaning in context (e.g. "Member State"). I don't think Wikipedia generally adopts this convention.

I think we need to distinguish several different cases in normal usage:

• A proper name is usually capitalized using headline style (i.e. all major words including verbs, adjectives, etc. are capitalized), e.g. "the Blue Danube", "the Treaty of Accesssion 2005". The EU seems to make an exception to this with treaties named "the Treaty establishing . . .", which seems to me to be a proper name rather than just a description, but "establishing" is not capitalized by the EU (we perhaps should, though it could be argued that the non-capitalization is part of the name and can therefore be decided by the authority responsible for the name).
• Shorter alternative names that are unambiguous in context, such as "the Queen" or "the President", when in the Commonwealth and the United States, respectively.
• Generic (non-deictic) references such as "Elizabeth II was the first reigning queen (or monarch) to appear on television."
• Anaphoric references to a person or thing previously mentioned, which should, in my opinion, not be capitalized in normal usage (as opposed to legal usage). Examples, in my opinion, include terms like "the treaty", "this document", "it", etc. Although it is not always easy to define the difference between a contextually unambiguous proper name and an anaphoric reference, I think it is often intuitively obvious and can be tested by asking if the term is functionally equivalent to something that is more obviously deictic (e.g, "this agreement", "it"). I think many people tend to confuse anaphoric use and wider contextual resolution when the same word is used (rather than a pronoun or a synonym).

Having said that, I don't know if WP:MOS has a specific opinion on whether to apply normal or specialist usage in such cases.

The Chicago Manual of Style (14th ed.) has: "Full formal or accepted titles of . . . treaties, . . . are uusally capitalized . . . . Incomplete names are usually lowercased: . . . Illinois Constitution, the state constitution, the constitution . . .", as opposed to "the Constitution", which in the USA (even in Illinois) would mean the "Constitution of the United States".--Boson (talk) 14:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks both of you for the interesting input. Both sounds very reasonable. I am convinced it is true what Lwx.. wrote about the legal usage, yet I am not certain that we have to adopt it. I see my intuition very much reflected in what Boson explained, though I got a little bit lost how I should not confuse anaphoric use and wider contextual resolution.

Have a look here how Britannica does it [23]. The say the treaty in the first paragraph after they had introduced The Treaty of Lisbon.

Otherwise, I have to admit that I have little to add to the solid arguments already give both ways. Still, it would be nice to conclude something and apply it consistently. Perhaps, we should bring it up at WP:MoS? Tomeasy _{T C} 00:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not overly concerned which way this goes, provided this is consistency within the article. My leaning is towards "the Treaty", but that could just be because I am so used to seeing it in academic works/EU/foreign office documentation. If pushed I would argue that it is not particularly a specialist use, but rather a shorter alternative name in Boson's typology. It is not ambiguous in the context of the article (or particular sentences). However, I can see the point is arguable either way. Other wiki articles are no help. Particularly if you look at the Treaty of Nice article, it mixes usage quite a bit. Lwxrm (talk) 10:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if that was a bit confusing. As a rule of thumb, I would say if you could have used a shorter term (like "the Queen" or "the President") without having mentioned it before in the text (including the title) then this is "wider contextual resolution", i.e. the potential ambiguity is resolved by the general context; you would know what was meant, even if it hadn't been mentioned earlier. If the meaning is clear only because of the normal rule that "the x" (like pronouns) refers to a recently mentioned x (the antecedent), then we are talking about an anaphoric reference. If two treaties in Britain referred to "the Queeen" it would be a proper name and it would be the same person that was meant; if the two documents referred to "this document" or "the treaty" it would be different things that were meant; it would not really be a proper name. So I would tend not to capitalize "the treaty" but I can see the point of adopting what I would think of as "legal" usage, and I am also not that worried, as long as there is some sort of consistency. It might be worth raising the issue at WT:MOS, in case it has been discussed before.--Boson (talk) 11:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I started a discussion here at MOS. Please improve the rationales I presented for both positions. Tomeasy _{T C} 11:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

How do you see the result of the discussion? There were clearly more voices for the t than for the T. However, even more clearly, the discussion was not very vivid. Can this be called consensus? Tomeasy _{T C} 22:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Only part one is available...am I right...???

• http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/full_text/index_en.htm

--222.64.214.120 (talk) 01:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean?--Boson (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The treaty is available here: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/cg00014.en07.pdf

--Boson (talk) 17:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The Treaty of Lisbon and the resulting consolidated Treaties are here: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/ ; paper copies can be ordered, and PDF copies downloaded here: http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/full_text/index_en.htm – Kaihsu (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is there no criticism?

In the article I do not see criticism. In the German Wikipedia there is contained a lot of criticism: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertrag_von_Lissabon#Debatte_und_Kritik To read it in English: http://translate.google.de/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FVertrag_von_Lissabon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.67.86.208 (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Also the German discussion page contains interesting facts. Although the translation is bad, the most important things can be understood: http://translate.google.de/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDiskussion%3AVertrag_von_Lissabon --92.74.193.6 (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This article should definitely have a criticism section, given the large amount of criticism of the Lisbon Treaty from a wide range of sources, and the difficulty in getting everyone on board. I came here myself specifically in order to better understand the criticism of the Lisbon Treaty. Hopefully such a section can be added soon.

Yes, I agree this article is in need of a criticism section. This is a very important Treaty and will have an significant and lasting effect on the future shape of the European Union. Therefore it is only logical that questions of over centralization, higher levels of bureaucracy, loss of local and personal sovereignty should be presented along side the claims of "streamlining", "efficiency" and a "greater voice on the world stage". OrangeCorner (talk) 23:38 15 October 2009 (CST)

See Wikipedia:Criticism sections. Do we have a consensus that there is a need for a separate criticism section? Boson (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Having criticism does not mean having a criticism section. Criticism should be incorporated in relevant sections, where appropriate. --Boson (talk) 06:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This article definitely needs its own criticism section, or perhaps controversies. From all the protests I have heard on TV and the arguments used, there are definitely two sides of this coin, and it needs to be represented. --Nabo0o (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I came here purely to read the criticism regarding this treaty, but there is no section for it! Definitely add this! 80.221.234.226 (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can find some sourced criticism you can add it. Bevo74 (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be foolish to think that the EU hasnt taken the initiative to control this definition. Of course it has, and consequently any criticism section, along with this comment, has been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.219.2 (talk) 09:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You can check it in the history page. However I find toot that this article should have a criticism section.84.220.118.123 (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The population of Spain is not 45 millions, it is 46.7 or 46.6 millions

46.745.807 million people live in Spain on the 1st January 2009, on the next annual census (1st January 2010) it is expected that the population of Spain will exceed 47 millions.

http://www.la-moncloa.es/ConsejodeMinistros/Referencias/_2009/refc20091211.htm#Empadronado

Could you change it?

You can check, as well, the article of Spain

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espa%C3%B1a

92.0.226.39 (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

When exactly will it enter into force?

At 00:00 of 1 December 2009 is clear enough, but which timezone? Would it be Central European Time (that is to say, 23:00 of 30 November 2009 UTC), or does it come into force at the specified time in the local time zone of the territories to which it applies? Citation(s) please? – Kaihsu (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I checked EUR-Lex but could not find any relevant instrument. I suppose one opinion can be that the seats of all EU institutions are in the same timezone, which applies. – Kaihsu (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe it will be 00:01 (GMT) on 1 December 2009. Vandagard (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any legal reference regarding this claim? Thanks. – Kaihsu (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This date has now passed and the box saying that the page needs to be edited is still there and I was just wondering what needs to be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carf1 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Some points on the Charter of Fundamental Rights

1. The UK has a protocol, not an opt-out. It is still open to UK residents to invoke the Charter before the UK courts. The protocol just limits how the Charter applies to acts undertaken by the UK government in order to implement EU law. Anyone affected by an EU legal measure (be they within the UK or without) can take a case arguing that the measure is invalid because it conflicts with the Charter and if they win the and the measure is declared invalid, the measure is invalid in all member states.

2. Strictly speaking the Charter isn't really legally binding in any member state. Certainly not in the sense that EU residents have legal rights which are assertable against the member states themselves. The Charter applies to the EU's institutions and bodies. EU citizens, residents etc. derive rights from that application but not otherwise.

3. Only the political rights are limited to EU citizens. The other rights apply to anyone in the jurisdiction of the member states. (Excluding the parts of member states which are not in the EU). — Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the Protocol may go a little further than you've indicated in (1). Although it's not 100% watertight, I think it would relegate the Charter to the status of soft law in both Poland and the UK, to the extent that it creates "justiciable rights" which are not provided for in national law. That raises the interesting question of the extent to which the corresponding HRA rights are justiciable, and whether they would remain so if the UK repealed the HRA. I think you're right in (2), any fundamental rights of general application created by the Charter would operate vis-a-vis EU bodies. Lamberhurst (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Move

Let's move this article to Treaty of Lisbon (2007) as there are plenty of treaties of Lisbon. That page is currently a silly #REDIRECT to this page. Confusing! The other treaties aren't one bit less important than the 2007 one! This is blatant chrono-fascism! 85.77.191.236 (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd call it chronocentrism, but only because I don't know the Greek word for "now". We don't want Fascists to think chrono-fascism is an admirable political stance, do we? Let centrists think that way. Unfree (talk) 09:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Updating following entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty

I have reviewed this article thoroughly, having myself studied the matter carefully in recent weeks. I have removed three out-of-date references. In my view, this article is now up-to-date and the notice at the top should be removed (I do not see how to do this). I have added a reference to my own commentary: this may answer some of the queries I see on the talk page, and indicates why I may be sufficiently qualified to write on this subject! Bergerie (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Following your post, I just examined one section (Treaty_of_Lisbon#Council_of_Ministers), and found that it still used future tense for the provisions of the treaty, like the High Representative chairing the Foreign Affairs Council.

How is the status of tenses in the other sections? Tomeasy _{T C} 12:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes: there were some future tenses. This is not my article, but I have now corrected these. The substance is correct, and whoever wrote must be one of the few people who understand the Lisbon Treaty. I again suggest that the "update" message at the beginning now be removed. Also: someone has deleted my reference to my commentary on the Treaty. In my view, such a commentary is badly needed to complement the information in the present article. If someone can indicate a better source that is up-to-date, readable and accurate, fine. If not, I would like that reference to be restored : http://lisbontreatycommentary.wordpress.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bergerie (talk • contribs) 09:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest we stick to the present tense and avoid future obsolescence problems? After all, it is equally innocuous to say, "1492: Columbus sails Ocean Blue" and "2092: Big Brother vaporizes Bermuda", is it not? Unfree (talk) 09:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguity about TFEU

"The Treaty of Lisbon...amends...the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC, Rome; 1957). In this process, the TEC was renamed to Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)." This, to me, leaves open the question, "Does TFEU refer to the TEC as amended, or as it stood prior to amendment?" Unfree (talk) 09:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it refers to the treaty as ammended. Khajidha (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)